Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
!! That is the dude who made me want to throw stuff at the TV recently when he showed up on Bill Maher spouting the same stats that the red pill guys have been blathering about here on City Data for over a DECADE.
Funny story my friend. The work I do for a living is at least partially data science. I mine, compile, and analyze massive volumes of data to figure out what questions need to be researched, and I research them then to save my clients money (more or less.)
And so I get the temptation to get excited about dating apps, because it could give some data driven insight to people's dating behaviors. Cool idea! But if one understands science (and data) then one knows that you have to control for a bunch of variables before you can rely on the conclusions you are drawing. And if you don't do that, because it's more convenient to just engineer stats that support your agenda and conclusions, well...that's no good at all.
So I have questions.
Have we established that in general there are more men than women on dating apps? People keep saying so. What is that ratio, exactly, by region?
Can we figure out how many single women who want to date, are and are not using the apps, and the same for men?
Are we excluding people who are already coupled up, from these stats of "50% of men are forced out of the dating pool?" Because I don't personally believe that 50% of men are even single. (By that I don't just mean unmarried, I mean truly single, no girlfriend or fiancee or partner.)
Have we ruled out the men who sabotaged their own efforts by sending crude messages from the jump? (As in, they are mostly there to troll?)
Have we ruled out all of the women who are scammers, spammers, bots, fakes, etc?
Even if I were taking the premise on its face, that almost all of the women on some app have chosen the narrowest slice of "top" men and ignored all of the rest... Has anyone even thought to ask those women what exactly drove their decision making? Obviously, if all else were equal, apples to apples, same guy, if I had to choose one with more education or less, I'd probably choose one with more. Why not? But if they are not otherwise identical, then you have added more variables, and if you've added more variables, then you've tampered with your results.
I keep saying, you guys seem awfully desperate to turn something that should be more arts/humanities, into cold hard math and science, and if that's not a total turn off (even to my spreadsheet loving self) then I don't know what is.
Status:
"Peace sells...but who's buying?"
(set 6 days ago)
Location: South of Heaven
8,122 posts, read 3,598,258 times
Reputation: 11912
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanley-88888888
huh ?, i forgot most humans cant process boolean stochastics. in this hypothesis, the converse, inverse and contra-positives are all in tautology. it doesnt matter what order the antecedent or consequent are, they both yield the same contingency; therefor, what i proposed up above is not a contradiction:
Spoiler
∀(women in set[independent] pretty) => ∈(women in set[dependent] ⊕ unattractive)
Typically I don't like mixing sex with math but I suppose there could be exceptions.
huh ?, i forgot most humans cant process boolean stochastics. in this hypothesis, the converse, inverse and contra-positives are all in tautology. it doesnt matter what order the antecedent or consequent are, they both yield the same contingency; therefor, what i proposed up above is not a contradiction:
Spoiler
∀(women in set[independent] pretty) => ∈(women in set[dependent] ⊕ unattractive)
To be fair, your questionable punctuation made your prior statement confusing because you used “pretty” as an adverb. Even assuming you mean to say a pretty, dependent women is better than a less attractive, independent woman, chances are that a pretty woman is ultimately going to become less attractive. Then you’re stuck with a less attractive, dependent woman which I would assume is the worst option. YMMV though.
I think too many people go by 'statistics' not realizing that those statistics only represent a very SMALL amount of the population at large.!
When I was married the first time, I married someone who made more than I did. Within a few months, I got a job that made more than HE did. I was just happy that I was able to make as much as I did, finally coming into "my own." Him? No so much...
Several years after we divorced, we had a conversation. He suddenly became furious and said, "How do you think it feels when your own wife makes more than you do?" I fired back, "No one said that you couldn't have made more than me, IF that's what you were so concerned about!" He wasn't happy with what he was making, yet thought that *I* should be satisfied with what he was making, even though HE wasn't. Made no sense.
Felt that, too. Even being pregnant, my husband expected me to do most of the child-rearing, domestic stuff, even though I was earning more, working more. Even when I was pregnant, I was working 50+ hours a week. His whole attitude seemed to be, "Yeah, go ahead and work all you want. Bring in all the money you want. As long as you cook for me, and take care of the kid(s) I don't really care what you do. Besides, it's good for *me*, because I can spend as much money as I want on *myself*, as long as you're working..."
That gets old, REAL fast.
Seriously!
They feel "cheated" because they don't have control! No longer do *they* get to say whether divorce is imminent. Is he a jerk? Abusive? Controlling? Selfish? In *their* minds, not enough reason to divorce!
Regarding the bolded: is it any wonder that "80%" of divorces are initiated by women? Of course the men don't want to divorce when "new mommy" is taking care of all the business "old mommy" did for widdle snookums. Of course they feel cheated when they have their gravy train make the last stop and they get shoved off at the station. I think there are a WHOLE LOT of men who are fully incapable of taking care of themselves appropriately and independently. Today's women don't want to be adult caregivers to their "man", if anything they want a life partner. Tough luck for the men who are only seeking to "latch on" to another teat.
!! That is the dude who made me want to throw stuff at the TV recently when he showed up on Bill Maher spouting the same stats that the red pill guys have been blathering about here on City Data for over a DECADE.
Funny story my friend. The work I do for a living is at least partially data science. I mine, compile, and analyze massive volumes of data to figure out what questions need to be researched, and I research them then to save my clients money (more or less.)
And so I get the temptation to get excited about dating apps, because it could give some data driven insight to people's dating behaviors. Cool idea! But if one understands science (and data) then one knows that you have to control for a bunch of variables before you can rely on the conclusions you are drawing. And if you don't do that, because it's more convenient to just engineer stats that support your agenda and conclusions, well...that's no good at all.
So I have questions.
Have we established that in general there are more men than women on dating apps? People keep saying so. What is that ratio, exactly, by region?
Can we figure out how many single women who want to date, are and are not using the apps, and the same for men?
Are we excluding people who are already coupled up, from these stats of "50% of men are forced out of the dating pool?" Because I don't personally believe that 50% of men are even single. (By that I don't just mean unmarried, I mean truly single, no girlfriend or fiancee or partner.)
Have we ruled out the men who sabotaged their own efforts by sending crude messages from the jump? (As in, they are mostly there to troll?)
Have we ruled out all of the women who are scammers, spammers, bots, fakes, etc?
Even if I were taking the premise on its face, that almost all of the women on some app have chosen the narrowest slice of "top" men and ignored all of the rest... Has anyone even thought to ask those women what exactly drove their decision making? Obviously, if all else were equal, apples to apples, same guy, if I had to choose one with more education or less, I'd probably choose one with more. Why not? But if they are not otherwise identical, then you have added more variables, and if you've added more variables, then you've tampered with your results.
I keep saying, you guys seem awfully desperate to turn something that should be more arts/humanities, into cold hard math and science, and if that's not a total turn off (even to my spreadsheet loving self) then I don't know what is.
You are sticking to your belief that not only every study showing online dating is massively stacked in favor of young / non-middle-age women let's say under age 37-38 is flawed/not credible, but also that every anecdotal test (man creating a truly average-looks female profile and vice versa) - all of which have established that it is absurdly, insanely easier for women, like 10-100x easier depending on looks - they're all lies and misrepresentations. That's beyond the pale.
You may well be very attractive, but a 5 woman gets bombarded [by ugly and considerably better-looking guys alike] in online dating, and a 5 man gets zilch. Even a 7.5-8.5 man who does fine in the real world has to struggle to get good results online. Studies have shown that any woman who is over a 1-1.5 out of 10 gets as much attention as a 9.5-10 man, women below a 1 get as much attention as a 8-9 guy, and any woman who is over a 3 out of 10 gets substantially more than a 9/10 man. A 9 woman gets orders of magnitude more attention than a 9 man, because as long as there's nothing odious/offensive in her profile, which she can basically leave blank, pretty much every guy on earth is going to swipe right, figuring why not, if she's cool/ a real profile I can find that out later. Only the top 0.1-1% of men get results/attention comparable to the top 10% of women. Again, this is among young women, particularly women 18-29.
Part of the problem is that many women fancy themselves way better-looking than they are, when you take away the make-up and other accessories/enhancements that men don't have. Using make-up, lighting, favorable poses, filters, etc, it's not at all difficult for a non-morbidly-obese woman to appear above-average-looking in photos, which basically opens her up to all men at that point (in terms of swiping). Any woman who is a 7 or higher in looks is going to be considered by pretty much all men, even the best-looking, as a relationship prospect. And men just looking for sex will frequently dip down 3-6+ notches, so women often get the wrong idea about their looks / expectations after that happens a couple times, i.e. the Forty Niner phenomenon
To be fair, I would also note that anecdotally (and I believe studies would corroborate), online dating seems to be considerably easier for [equivalent-looking] older guys over say age 55 than it is for women.
Remember, it's a multi-billion-dollar business, and people getting together, going on dates, and deleting the apps is bad for business. People spinning their wheels, swiping, having dead-end chats with bots/fakes, and getting endless validation/ego-fanning is great for business, temporarily at least.
They feel "cheated" because they don't have control! No longer do *they* get to say whether divorce is imminent. Is he a jerk? Abusive? Controlling? Selfish? In *their* minds, not enough reason to divorce!
Why are so many into "control"? What's that about? Is it cultural? Is it about feeling entitled, and if so, how did they arrive at feeling that way? Is it an elitist thing? My observation is, that the shy guys aren't into that at all.
You are sticking to your belief that not only every study showing online dating is massively stacked in favor of young / non-middle-age women let's say under age 37-38 is flawed/not credible, but also that every anecdotal test (man creating a truly average-looks female profile and vice versa) - all of which have established that it is absurdly, insanely easier for women, like 10-100x easier depending on looks - they're all lies and misrepresentations. That's beyond the pale.
You may well be very attractive, but a 5 woman gets bombarded [by considerably better-looking guys] in online dating, and a 5 man gets zilch.
This isn't true. We've had women here, who got zilch. One was here for at least a couple of years, and gave us steady reports of her experience on OLD: bots, scammers, one-word burps ("s'up?") IF that. Mostly bots and scammers. She posted a photo of herself, and she was averagely attractive. Call her a 6. After a second year of nothing but bots and scammers, she gave up, and moved out-of-state to try in another city rumored to have far more men than women. She didn't follow up with us after that.
There have been other women who put up videos on youtube about their experiences getting zilch on OLD. Some women who know they're not photogenic, don't even try.
I have zero interest in OLD, but when I did more than 20 years ago, it may have been "absurdly, insanely easier" to attract responses, but those responses were not welcome. Had 2 bad experiences. I'm not foolish enough - let alone interested enough - to go for a third.
Just because women get far more responses doesn't mean those men are quality prospects. Far from it, in most cases. <Now I'm sure you'll come up with statistics against that statement!
Talk to REAL women with REAL experiences about just what kind of nut job losers respond to OLD profiles and that is far more reliable than "statistics."
This isn't true. We've had women here, who got zilch. One was here for at least a couple of years, and gave us steady reports of her experience on OLD: bots, scammers, one-word burps ("s'up?") IF that. Mostly bots and scammers. She posted a photo of herself, and she was averagely attractive. Call her a 6. After a second year of nothing but bots and scammers, she gave up, and moved out-of-state to try in another city rumored to have far more men than women. She didn't follow up with us after that.
There have been other women who put up videos on youtube about their experiences getting zilch on OLD. Some women who know they're not photogenic, don't even try.
I would be interested to see her profile, know her age and child status/preferences (since lot of guys filter based on age and if a woman has or does not want kids) and if she had healthy BMI etc (even if she had pretty face; since TBH, a lot of guys will swipe left if a woman is overweight or does not have pics showing full body).
Guys write sup and 1-word answers because women not of higher intelligence (and even many of them) respond very negatively / unfavorably if you write anything significant (by significant I mean more than one full sentence). You can believe whatever you want (and won't be surprised if you choose to believe otherwise), but a huge percentage of women these days are bona fide abuse/thrill/drama addicts. And I really mean addicts i.e. their lives are fundamentally governed/steered by getting their next hit, and anything not related to that hit is off their radar. I've had probably 8-10 women open with a specific question (they have to message first on this app; often just with a lame 'hey'), I answer it in a couple sentences (maybe 20-30 words, not overly enthusiastic or wordy, the same way I would answer anyone) and ask them something / comment on something (nothing weird/boring) as one normally does in conversation, and they just go permanently silent. Maybe it's a bot but what would be the point of that? And doesn't seem like bot in many cases.
Whereas if you give them minimal feedback or respond in a douchily minimalist way, they as a general rule keep coming back. It's sick and weird, but it's the way it is, at least currently. Women need to blame other women for men increasingly acting like that, men are just adapting their behavior to women's responses. Even though I know it works for hooking them in and getting dates, I don't bother because I've gotten laid enough already (if I must, I'd sooner just go home with a random woman at a bar than spend significant money and time dating a loser woman) and I'm not interested in an empty/pathetic woman like that, I just unmatch them if they don't respond/show enough enthusiasm within 24-48 hours.
Last edited by pleg1; 12-03-2022 at 10:47 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Made no sense. 
